He (Senator Rick Santorum) told NCR that a distinction between private religious conviction and public responsibility, enshrined in John Kennedy's famous speech in 1960 saying he would not take orders from the Catholic church if elected president, has caused "much harm in America."

"All of us have heard people say, `I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for somebody else?' It sounds good," Santourm said. "But it is the corruption of freedom of conscience."

Santorum told NCR that he regards George W. Bush as "the first Catholic president of the United States."

"From economic issues focusing on the poor and social justice, to issues of human life, George Bush is there," he said. "He has every right to say, `I'm where you are if you're a believing Catholic.'"--National Catholic Reporter, January 18, 2002

No Senator Santorum, George Bush is not "there." And contrary to the spin generated by many of your friends on the Catholic Right, neither are you.

If any one race this year proves that for those on the Catholic Right are more concerned with preserving the superfluous wealth of the few and not with the well being of the many, just look at this year's U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania.

Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the junior Senator from the Keystone State is now trailing his Democratic challenger Bob Casey, Jr. in some polls by close to twenty points. And on many issues in which the Catholic Church takes vocal positions, it is Casey the Democrat, not Santorum, the Opus Dei "cooperator" who is more consistently in line with Vatican teachings.

Yet almost to the man the usual suspects on the Catholic Right are backing as well as funding Rick Santorum's reelection campaign. That is a rather strange result when the following factors are considered:

* Both candidates oppose abortion and embryonic stem cell research, yet it is Santorum, not Casey who has accepted over a hundred thousand dollars from tobacco interests and in turn has constantly voted in the interests of an industry whose primary product has been proven to cause death and disease as well as harming a developing fetus.(i)

* Santorum has constantly voted for legislation and federal judges who gut unions and workers' rights--something that adversely affects working and middle-class Catholics.

Senator Santorum has also been one of the leaders in the quest to privatize Social Security and hand it over to his friends on Wall Street. Well informed economists such as Paul Krugman and Peter Orzag have documented how privatization will bankrupt the system, not save it. Money that is now used for benefits payments would instead go for investment fees. Senator Santorum's actions tell us that his primary concern is not with the vulnerable, the widowed or disabled, but with patrons of unbridled self-interest such as Wall Street investor Mallory Factor.

But those on the Catholic Right who value mammon over a more consistent and effective Catholicism--and one that respects the cherished American institution of --Value Pluralism--see it as their mission to prevent a Casey victory. And to that end, they will obfuscate, spin and make highly attenuated claims.

In Catholic League news releases from September 19 and October 27, 2006 William Donohue attacked Democratic US Senate candidate Bob Casey, Jr. The crux of the September 19, 2006 release was that while Casey, who personally opposes abortion, took campaign contributions from MoveOn.org which is clearly pro-choice.

And why did Bill Donohue challenge Bob Casey, Jr.'s pro-life credentials? Did he suddenly become pro-choice? No. According to Donohue, Casey's sin was `...that if elected he would focus more on health care and jobs than abortion. With regard to abortion, he said he wants "to see more of an emphasis on what brings people together rather than what tears people apart." He also said that being pro-life means, "I support initiatives which would reduce the number of abortions."'

Apparently Messrs. Donohue, Cella and Burch. are so rigid in their means to reducing abortion that anything short of an outright prohibition is unacceptable. Such is the way of close-minded men.

But there is more to the method of the Catholic Right stalwarts than meets the eye. Bob Casey is advocating a more consistent position on what it means to be pro-life. And while I personally disagree with his positions on choice and embryonic stem cell research, I find his effort for consistency far more admirable than that of either the Catholic League or Fidelis.
And why is both the Catholic League and Fidelis leading this assault? Simply because Mr. Casey's way would entail using government to protect the weaker members of our society by strengthening workers rights, providing better healthcare coverage and being more reserved about the projection of US military power-all agenda items contrary to the many nefarious friends of the Catholic Right.

The attacks by Fidelis and the Catholic League smack of hypocrisy. Where is their call for Senator Santorum to return his tobacco PAC donations? Where is their call for him to better abide by Rerum Novarum and Mater et Magistra as well as the intent of the Bishops' Program for Social Reconstruction?

In sum, it is Casey, not Senator Santorum whose platform falls more closely reflects Church teachings. But to their ecoonomic dismay, Casey's beliefs reflect neither the Catholic Right's war against both reasoned dissent and the meritorious achievement of wealth. And if Senator Santorum chooses to deride President Kennedy for saying that he would not take orders from the Vatican, then he is morally obligated to explain why, in true smorgasbord Catholic fashion, he hypocritically chooses to support an intervention in Iraq that both Pope John Paul II and his successor, Benedict XVI both condemned?

Obviously there is a limit to the Senator Santorum's unquestioned obedience to Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Pope and his bishops). That threshold is certainly reached when hegemony and trickle-down economics are at stake. And that's why with holy-rollers such as Bill Donohue, Joseph Cella, Brian Burch and Risk Santorum, it's primarily about the Plutocracy, and not about a more consistent notion of maintaining the institutions of the common good.

Neoconservative pundit David Brooks in the October 29, 2006 edition of the New York Timesincredibly described that Santorum's pending defeat as "...probably good news in Pennsylvania's bobo suburbs, where folks regard Santorum as an ideological misfit and a social blight. But it's certainly bad for poor people around the world."

Whenever I read our Mr. Brooks I always wonder about his priorities. Here is a neocon who buys into much of the ivory-towered Straussan paradigm. And while Mr. Brooks worries (rather attenuatedly) about poor folks in other parts of the world, he shows little concern for American workers who were victims Senator Santorum's darwinian economics.

Reading Brooks' piece as well as the writings of Santorum's other friends esoterically, it is easy to understand that they are not after individual independence, but an economic as well as spiritual dependence of the many upon a plutocracy of the few.

Brooks is a something of a Leo Strauss neocon. When you read him, do so whle reading between the lines. When you understand some of the Straussian code words ("manliness," "virtue," etc.,) you can then understand what he is really trying to say.

Reading Anne Norton's Leo Strauss and American Empire is a great tool for this endeavor.

Respect for Others? or Political Correctness? The term "political correctness" as used by Conservatives and Republicans has often puzzled me: what exactly do they mean by it? After reading Chip Berlin's piece here-- http://www.talk2action.org/story/2016/7/21/04356/9417 I thought about what he explained......MTOLincoln(4 comments)

Fear What I'm feeling now is fear. I swear that it seems my nightmares are coming true with this new "president". I'm also frustrated because so many people are not connecting all the dots! I've......ArchaeoBob(4 comments)

"America - love it or LEAVE!" I've been hearing that and similar sentiments fairly frequently in the last few days - far FAR more often than ever before. Hearing about "consequences for burning the flag (actions) from Trump is chilling!......ArchaeoBob(4 comments)

"Faked!" Meme Keep your eyes and ears open for a possible move to try to discredit the people openly opposing Trump and the bigots, especially people who have experienced terrorism from the "Right" (Christian Terrorism is......ArchaeoBob(6 comments)

See if you recognize names on this list This comes from the local newspaper, which was conservative before and took a hard right turn after it was sold. Hint: Sarah Palin's name is on it! (It's also connected to Trump.) ......ArchaeoBob(3 comments)

Unions: A Labor Day Discussion This is a revision of an article which I posted on my personal board and also on Dailykos. I had an interesting discussion on a discussion board concerning Unions. I tried to piece it......Xulon(4 comments)

Capitalism and the Attack on the Imago Dei I joined this site today, having been linked here by Crooksandliars' Blog Roundup. I thought I'd put up something I put up previously on my Wordpress blog and also at the DailyKos. As will......Xulon(2 comments)

Alternate economy medical treatment Dogemperor wrote several times about the alternate economy structure that dominionists have built. Well, it's actually made the news. Pretty good article, although it doesn't get into how bad people could be (have been)......ArchaeoBob(5 comments)

Evidence violence is more common than believed Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident? I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......ArchaeoBob(7 comments)

Demon Mammon? An anthropologist from outer space might be forgiven for concluding that the god of this world is Mammon. (Or, rather, The Market, as depicted by John McMurtry in his book The Cancer Stage of......daerie(2 comments)